HC Deb 16 December 1977 vol 941 cc1161-73

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)

It is good of the Minister to be here today. I would not keep him from his holiday but for a very serious matter—that is discrimination against Liverpool Airport. It has been going on for some time. I am sure that it is not something on which his Department has a conscious policy, but it is there nevertheless. No one quite knows what the Department's policy is towards Liverpool Airport. We have been waiting quite a while to find out, because the White Paper on airport policy has still not been published. It was promised for last spring, then for the autumn, and we now are told that it will be available in January 1978. I understand that the Minister has run into problems, and I do not begrudge him the extra time, but the uncertainty causes its own problems.

The discrimination is part of a total Government approach against Liverpool. It may not be an intentional discrimination—we do not know—but the pattern is roughly as follows. The Government make a great song and dance about what goodies they are bringing into Liverpool. There are Press conferences, statements and walkabouts. Naturally, these attract a good deal of attention, and while all that is going on they slide out other decisions under the sort of smokescreen that is created.

Consider the rate support grant. On the face of it, Liverpool is getting about £300,000 more next year. But no one mentions that improvement grants will be more than £4 million less than in 1974, that council house improvements are £2 million less than last year, or that the local authority fund for mortgages for the purchase of old houses is down £3.2 million on 1974. In this context the partnership arangements, which will bring £5 million more to Merseyside and Liverpol in particular, are merely to offset the losses.

If the Government intended the special development area status to give Merseyside a new lease of life, surely they would insist that the 2,100 acres of derelict land in Liverpool should be sold off, albeit by public auction, because 60 per cent. of the inner city's derelict land is owned by the local authority and by nationalised industry. Instead, however, the Government are moving jobs away from the inner city to the outskirts of the town. A total of 80,000 jobs have been moved out of the centre and 100,000 have been created on the periphery. All this contributes to the movement of industry from the inner area to the outskirts.

Last year 15,000 tons of freight was shipped from Liverpool Airport, in spite of its disadvantages, which is double the amount shipped through the East Midlands Airport and is second only to the figure for Manchester Airport.

I am told that Speke Airport is willing and ready to expand its freight side if only the Government will give a lead to developing derelict land in the inner area, establishing small firms and industry and allowing this natural asset only five miles from the city centre to be developed and expanded. There is no doubt that, while one Government Department realises the problems of Merseyside and offers a few extra coppers, another Department pulls the carpet from under Liverpool's feet.

But it is not only Government Departments that are at fault. The trouble also lies with many of the quasi-official organisations for which the Minister cannot or will not answer. But make no mistake about it: they are part of a conspiracy to run down Liverpool. This becomes clear when one considers the part that those organisations are playing. Take British Airways. There are three return flights a day between London and Liverpool but there are 10 from Manchester, to be increased by one next April. British Airways has no figures to give evidence of losses at Liverpool and gains at Manchester. I am told by people at British Airways that things are going well and the Liverpool service is making a profit. Subsequently, however, I am told that it is making a loss. Will the Minister get the facts and figures to determine whether there are losses or profits?

I have heard it rumoured that £900,000 was lost by British Airways in the manoeuvring from Mancheser to the outer regions. That loss may be £9,000 or £90,000, but it appears to be a loss which relates not to Liverpool but to Manchester.

Then there is the question of punctuality. Liverpool-to-London flights should take 45 minutes by jet, but the jets have recently been replaced by Viscounts, so that instead of having a fast, streamlined jet service we have 10-year-old planes trundling over the runways and taking much longer. This makes the service far less competitive with rail, and people think twice about paying double the cost to travel by plane. The timing by rail is much tighter and the differential is closer.

Take a typical month, which was last July, when nearly every day one of the three 'planes arrived late. Some aircraft were 40 minutes late, some 50 minutes and some over an hour late—and all this on a 45-minute journey. In a letter from British Airways, I was told that in June this year 79.4 per cent. of 'planes arrived within 15 minutes of their scheduled time, but on a 45-minute journey that represents one-third of the time. That is a damning record, and it has nothing to do with what is going on at Speke itself.

The airport prides itself on the speed with which it can turn the 'planes round. It is a most efficient organisation which is run almost as a family concern. There is very great pride among the men in getting the 'planes turned round fast if they arrive late. This friendly family concern is an organisation in which everyone pulls his weight.

On 16th and 17th March last, 33 aircraft arrived at Liverpool from St. Etienne. The Minister may recall that we had a debate on this in the early hours one morning, and I take this opportunity to remind him that 2,528 passengers passed through the terminal in each direction. As for the aircraft, TriStars and 707s were all accommodated. Speke could have better facilities, I suppose, but it coped that day.

If only one 'plane can fly to either Manchester or Liverpool, it is always the Manchester 'plane that gets off and the Liverpool 'plane that is cancelled. During the recent strike by air traffic control assistants, the Liverpool flights were written off while the Manchester flights were continued, albeit on a decreased scale.

The discrimination is even more glaring when one considers the numbers of people turned away at London because 'planes are full. I mention the 4.25 flight from London. It is often full, and so many people were being turned away that British Airways said that it would put on a Trident to take the load. It has not yet materialised, yet the promise was made a year ago. People are still being turned away and revenue is being lost. British Airways has told me in a letter that it is ready to increase the service to Liverpool if there is evidence of demand. What more evidence does it want than to have to turn people away?

There is then discrimination in local newspaper advertisements. "Fly to Manchester", they say, but it is only in a small footnote that one learns that one can fly to Liverpool as well.

Then there are little touches. A hot breakfast is served on the Manchester flight, whereas passengers flying to Liverpool get only a cup of tea. The timing of the flights seems to have been chosen for inconvenience. There is a 10-hour gap during the day during which nothing flies to Liverpool, and at weekends there is hardly anything.

British Rail has been running identical hourly services between London and Liverpool and between London and Manchester for many years. It would not do that if it were not profitable. It costs less than half to go by rail. If British Rail can run identical services to the two centres, the Minister may well want to consider why British Airways does not do the same.

The plot thickens a little when one considers the Civil Aviation Authority. it is clearly aiding and abetting British Airways. I can remember that for many years the fares between London and Liverpool and between London and Manchester had always been identical—that was, until this year. The Minister may remember that attention was drawn to the fact that there was to be discrimination a year ago as between the flights, but subsequently the CAA changed its mind and the fares remained the same for the last year. This year, it has done it without my knowledge and the increase has crept in under the floorboards. We now have an increase of £3.40 in the fare to Liverpool. The cost of a London-to-Liverpool return is £45.40, while a London to Manchester return costs £42.

The CAA, with which I have been in correspondence, has suddenly discovered, after a long time, that the air journey from London to Liverpool is a few kilometres longer than the journey from London to Manchester. It is amazing that it did not discover this before. Because it is further, the CAA says that it must charge accordingly. That might be a forceful argument, but the CAA has not replied to the rather damning evidence that the fare for the Manchester to Belfast return flight is £41 whereas Liverpool to Belfast return costs £41.80, although the air journey from Manchester is 30 kilometres further. The Minister will clearly want to ask the CAA why there is this discrimination.

Then there is the navigational service charge that the CAA makes. There is a difference between the charges paid by airlines for technical services at Liverpool and those at Manchester. Aircraft landing at Liverpool pay a higher fee than those landing at Manchester. Someone should explain why this is so. In fact, because of the efforts of the county council and the airport, that is to change, but we are always battling to get on an equal plane with other airports. I am sorry about the pun.

Then there is the anomaly of IATA fares. Flights to Canada, the United States and the Caribbean have the same fares if they are from Manchester, but from Liverpool the fare is higher. The fare from Liverpool to Miami is £42 dearer than from Manchester to Miami. If that is not discrimination, I do not know what is.

I hope that the Minister, while sorting out what goes on in the CAA and British Airways, will also look at the cost of aviation fuel. It is no good saying that the Government have no control, because their stake in North Sea oil is well known. Perhaps the Minister will be surprised to hear that the cost of jet AI fuel at Liverpool Airport is 10.1p. per litre, while at Manchester it is 9.9p. per litre. Airline companies uplifting a large amount of fuel from Manchester obtain a considerable discount, so it is not unreasonable that charter fares from Manchester are cheaper. Perhaps the Minister can see why feelings are so high on Merseyside.

In a recent answer the Minister suggested that my concern was a constituency one, but he was completely wrong. Speke Airport is not in my constituency. It is the concern of the whole region. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I cannot see him in the Chamber, nor can I see any of the other Labour Members from Liverpool. I am slightly surprised that they have not felt this subject important enough to assist our discussion.

Liverpool Airport is prepared to compete on equal terms with any other airport in the country. The people there take pride in their work, but they cannot be expected to have the ground taken away from under them whenever they try to take fresh initiatives. The Minister knows that there are applications for licences from Aer Lingus. There are other applications in the pipeline, and I hope that he will have this debate very much in mind when he considers them. I underderstand that there is a possibility of a development of flights from Sydenham, in Belfast, with small aircraft flying to Speke. That link would be a remarkable achievement, and I hope that the Minister will take an interest in it.

The future of Liverpool Airport is in many ways symbolic of prosperity for the people of Merseyside, who see dereliction and decline all around them. Surely, one rôle of the Government is to raise up people, give them hope and let Speke Airport take off from the ground.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt (Wirral)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on a brilliant exposition of the clear discrimination against Speke Airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I have come here to listen attentively to these accusations because we are very concerned about the future of Liverpool Airport.

Why does the publication date of the White Paper on the Government's proposed airport strategy keep slipping away out of our grasp, rather like the date of the next General Election? On 5th July I asked the Minister when the strategy would be published and he replied: My right hon. Friend hopes to make this"— a statement— in the late summer".—[Official Report, 5th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 480.] Then I heard from Merseyside County Council that the Minister had written to it saying that it would definitely be in the autumn. As we waited anxiously, I asked in November what had happened to the strategy and received the shocking reply: A White Paper will be issued early in 1978."—[Official Report, 30th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 226.] —not in January, but early in 1978. May we know the Government's intentions now? Can the hon. Gentleman please give us a definite date?

I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will not hide behind the lack of any statement on airport strategy. In view of the clear evidence of discrimination against Liverpool Airport presented in this debate, as he is the guardian of aviation policy, will he not hide behind the narrow cloak of his responsibilities? There is evidence of a conspiracy against Liverpool Airport. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the very important issues raised today?

Speke Airport is essential for Liverpool and Merseyside. Will the hon. Gentleman promise to set up an inquiry into the clear evidence of shameful discrimination against Liverpool Airport, which has been so cleverly and brilliantly exposed today by my hon. Friend?

12.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has conferred, somewhat predictably, his Christmas gift on the House. He is an indefatigable supporter of Speke Airport. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety not to be rendered Speke-less—if he will forgive me.

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

That is a cracker.

Mr. Davis

I shall first refer to the question touched on by the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) because it goes to the heart of the problem. That is the question why the White Paper on the Government's strategy has not yet been published. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that when the Government embarked on this widespread process of consultation we did it after giving a great deal of thought to the choices facing us. We had to decide whether to impose a policy from Whitehall or to allow everybody—or most people who might wish to do so—to offer a view about a national airport strategy to remove the present chaos so far as airports in this country are concerned. If we were to do that, we were bound to take time.

Even until the past few weeks we have been hearing from people who wanted to make contributions, often important contributions such as those from the Highlands and Islands and local authorities in certain areas. Perhaps they should have made their contributions earlier, but I do not think it would have been right to reject them.

I understand the anxiety that this waiting period has produced. I said at the outset that this would happen. I am sorry that there has been this slippage, but the consultation period is now over and Ministers are considering a draft White Paper. I have every reason to hope that it will be issued in January, but, because I have learned from past difficulties over speculating on a date when, or even a quarter in which, it might be published, I am over-cautious and have said "early in the new year".

The hon. Member for Wavertree and the hon. Member for Wirral invited me, despite the fact that the White Paper has not yet been published, to prejudge the issue, but I cannot do that. I shall comment on some of the specific points which have been raised, but I do not propose to divulge to the House my Department's thinking on the matter, because the Government strategy is not a matter solely for my Department.

The hon. Member for Wavertree has in the past, and also in his remarks today, drawn attention to the importance of Liverpool Airport to the economy of Merseyside and to the uncertainty which the current position of Liverpool will mean for that area. I am anxious that that position should be resolved as soon as possible, and I hope that my words today may be of some comfort in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech mentioned issues on which I have no expertise and which are unrelated to Liverpool Airport. He sought to establish that there was a conspiracy, as he put it, to run down Liverpool. I regard that as a fanciful and somewhat hyperbolic argument. The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Liverpool, which he has been proud to flaunt before the House on numerous occasions, is something to which he is entitled, and, indeed, it is shared by Liverpool Members on both sides of the House. Liverpool is a great city, and they are entitled to be proud of it.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to establish an inquiry into the subject of discrimination. I do not know whether it is to be carried out under the 1921 legislation.

Mr. Steen

That would do.

Mr. Davis

I must reject that suggestion at once. We have already one matter under that procedure in operation. We must not take up too much of the judiciary's time on that sort of matter.

I shall take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised with British Airways. I do not believe that British Airways is engaging in a campaign of discrimination but, since the hon. Member has raised the matter, I feel that British Airways should be able to respond to those points in detail—points on which I am unable to have a ready answer this morning. Indeed, those matters are not even within my Department's area of responsibility, because they fall within the commercial judgment of British Airways.

I should like to advert to the matter of aircraft arriving late from Liverpool Airport. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking to establish that Liverpool Airport is being selectively discriminated against in that regard. I arrived back from Singapore recently and arrived three hours late at Heathrow.

Mr. Steen

The point is that when a short domestic flight arrives a quarter of an hour or half an hour late and the total journey is only three-quarters of an hour, that is a very different matter from arriving two or three hours late from a destination across the globe. I would say that there is discrimination against those who travel to Liverpool Airport. For example, when two flights are arriving from Heathrow to Manchester and Liverpool invariably the flight to Liverpool arrives later than the other.

Mr. Hunt

Always.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker (Wallasey)

I agree.

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion and I shall examine it. On the topic of aircraft arriving late, he will be aware that British Airways has had difficulty with its Trident fleet. Happily, the situation is gradually being resolved. But it has been a serious matter affecting British Airways, and it is right that in the interests of safety that body should have taken the action that it took. Some of those aircraft were withdrawn, and it has had a serious effect on the services provided.

The hon. Gentleman in his intervention said that it takes a longer time to travel from Liverpool to London I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that journey is slightly longer than the flight from Manchester to London.

Mr. Steen

I think the Minister has missed the point. It is also a matter of costs.

Mr. Davis

I am coming to that matter. The hon. Gentleman went on to accuse the Civil Aviation Authority of aiding and abetting British Airways in this appalling conspiracy. I cannot comment on the Manchester to Belfast or the Liverpool to Belfast situation. It is a matter which the CAA will examine if there is an anomaly, but it is the CAA rather than the Department of Trade that deals with the subject of fares. I gather that the CAA when investigating this matter decided that there should be this disparity, for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the matter of distance. That was the reason which motivated the authority in doing what it did in terms of disparity.

Mr. Steen

The Minister has got it wrong and he has the distances wrong.

Mr. Davis

If I am wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter further with me, but essentially it is a matter not for me but for the CAA.

The hon. Gentleman from time to time when making his case tends to overlard the arguments with a bit of emotion.

Mr. Steen

Why not?

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman replies "Why not?" We now know precisely where we stand.

I am well aware of the views expressed to the Department about the study we have undertaken into employment on Merseyside. It would be inconceivable that my Department, whose Secretary of State represents a Merseyside constituency, should be unaware of the serious social and unemployment difficulties affecting that part of the United Kingdom. I know that it is argued by some that the airport confers great industrial benefits on Merseyside. That is not the view taken by everybody connected with this subject, and we must weigh the two arguments. I have already said that my right hon. Friend will be announcing his decision shortly.

As was made clear in the consultation documents, our objective is to provide an airports system that will encourage the development of air services in the regions. The over-abundance of regional airports has tended in the past to encourage the spread of services thinly, thus reducing their value to air travellers, and particularly business men. This dispersal of air services has also, to some extent, contributed to the use of London airports by travellers from the regions. I believe that the regions outside the South-East in general, and the North-West in particular, would benefit from a concentration of air services. It is not the Government's job to make airlines operate services which in their judgment are not commercially viable, but it is a matter for British Airways and other airlines that operate in this area. I hope that a clear lead from the Government in identifying airports for future development will go some way to assist the development of a wider range and frequency of services from the regions.

The terms of route licences, including fares, are matters for the CAA and not for me. In setting the terms of licences the authority must carry out its duties under the Civil Aviation Act 1971. Under Section 3(1)(a) of that Act services should be provided at the lowest charges consistent with safety and an economic return to efficient operators on the sums invested in providing the services.

The hon. Gentleman has complained, not only today but on previous occasions, about the slightly higher fare on the Liverpool-London route compared with the Manchester-London route. It is not simply a question of distance. It is also a question of cost. The costs of the Liverpool-London route are higher. Because of that, the previous situation, under which the fares of the two groups were equal, caused operators to lose money on the Liverpool-London route. It was a question of relative costs which caused the CAA to authorise this slightly higher charge.

I am sure that the CAA would wish me to rebut the allegation that it has aided and abetted this deliberate conspiracy on the part of British Airways. It is anxious for me to establish, or at least assert, to the House that it seeks to involve itself in no discrimination against Liverpool. That is also the view of British Airways. The authority merely licenses routes. It cannot initiate applications. The number and variety of routes from Liverpool will depend on the view that airlines take of the viability of such services. I am assured by the CAA—and this goes to the conspiracy argument—that it would treat all applications for new routes on their merits and in acordance with the policy guidance given to the authority.

The hon. Gentleman has in the past touched on the question of Aer Lingus services from Liverpool. The service that Aer Lingus apparently has in mind is a Dublin-Liverpool-Amsterdam service. I can confirm that an approach has now been made—it was forecast by the hon. Gentleman long before it was actually made—to the Department of Trade by the Irish authorities. But it presents us with a number of difficulties in relation to the interests of our operators and the fact that the service is not provided for in the existing air services agreement. The question is under consideration by the two Governments and the airlines concerned. I cannot give any possible indication of the outcome, but the hon Gentleman will realise that it is not a simple matter. We have to have regard to the operation of the air services agreement and the value that exists in running this additional service both for Aer Lingus and for British Airways.

Mr. Steen

The point is that whenever Liverpool tries to make its airport work and profitable, it is stopped. It has constantly gone out for new business and there is always an obstacle.

Mr. Davis

The points made by the hon. Gentleman will be taken into account in resolving this problem, but it is not as simple as that. That is all I ask him to acknowledge today. I will ensure that British Airways and the CAA are made aware of what he has said. However, I am sure that they read Hansard—although I do not know that a corporate body can read Hansard. But those who are its members can do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, quite genuinely, for pursuing this matter, because it is by dint of the fact that hon. Members, local authorities and environmental groups have taken up the cause not only of their own local airports but of interests that sometimes are adverse to their local airports that we have been able to have such a balanced argument about our airports. As I said during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday, when I replied to a debate about services to the Highlands and Islands, the Government will not be able to please everybody, or anybody for that matter. It is a difficult determination to make.

We are trying to embark on a totally new strategy in this country, and we are justified in doing so. But constituency interests enter into the matter, and, quite naturally, hon. Members on both sides of the House fight for their constituency interests, even though sometimes they might collide with the national interest—I am not introducing the argument on Liverpool in this context.

That is the problem that faces the Government. I believe that it is our duty to bring out the White Paper, and that we should do it as soon as possible. I hope that the House will then find time to debate the serious issues which will affect the whole of the country under the considerations which the Government have been rightly obliged to give to this matter.